2006-10-06 Campaigning For a Candidate for the Council

Home

Honorable K. Angel Pilago October 6, 2006 Page 4 It is important to note that in interpreting the aforementioned subsection, the five listed prohibitions are simply some examples of prohibited activity, and should not be considered an exhaustive list. In other words, there may be other activities not expressly provided for or described in the Code that the Ethics Board may nonetheless conclude violates this subsection of our laws. It is also important to keep in mind that questions concerning whether there has been a breach of ethics are often fact-specific. In other words, as with many things in the law, there are no "bright line" answers, and a prudent and thorough analysis necessarily involves an examination of the facts unique to each situation. In the present case, the fact a sitting Council member seeks to publicly endorse another Council candidate, in our opinion, presents greater concern regarding the ethical appropriateness of such activity. This situation is markedly different than a County elected official publicly endorsing or supporting a candidate for federal office, for example. We are mindful and respectful of a private individual's right to endorse and campaign for any candidate he/she so chooses to support. This is where our Ethics Code seeks to balance the right of an individual against the collective conscience of our community, as interpreted by our Board of Ethics. Our research has revealed no Hawaii County Board of Ethics opinions directly on point. This is not to suggest this type of activity has not taken place previously in our County. It simply is evidence that no one has brought this particular issue before the Board of Ethics for formal analysis and the issuance of an informal advisory opinion. State Ethics Commission Opinions Hawaii State Ethics Commission Informal Advisory Opinion No. 22 (August 8, 1980) provides some guidance in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of this opinion for reference purposes. In that case, at issue was the use of government stationary and the like by an elected official in furtherance of the promotion of the candidacy of an individual for president of an organization. The State Ethics Commission, in a thoughtful discussion concerning the sometimes practical inability to differentiate an elected official's position from his private one, commented as follows: We emphasized that the Commission did not question the right of an elected official or of any employee, under the ethics code, to endorse persons seeking public or private offices, references for employment, acceptance to educational institutions, or other similar purposes (footnote omitted)' But it was our